Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Deucey]

7 minutes ago, Lex said:

I'd prefer an elevated light metro line, though I have no idea how crazy the portion west of Fordham Plaza would theoretically look.

The only way for it to work really would be a viaduct in the center of the street - similar to how Miami’s subway runs on US-1 to Coral Gables, Honolulu’s train, or AirTrain on the Van Wyck. But to do it right, parking on Fordham would have to be eliminated to create a median for the pylons in order to keep daylight on the sidewalks.

And to minimize eminent domain, it’d alienate part of Devoe Park to avoid curving towards Cedar Av.

I’d tunnel it west of Third Av/Webster, elevate it at Fordham University, have it elevated in the median by Bathgate, run level between Cambreleng and Southern, and elevated median until the transition to Pelham Pkwy - then I’d run it in a ditch like MNRR in the Bronx on Park Av.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

4 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Thank you for pointing that out as  train service frequency is already horrible. I wouldn't mind an extension towards Co-Op, but the problem is because of how  trains are running. We have the biggest issue that is the Dekalb interlock. Not only is it forced to wait for the  to pass by, but it is forced to wait for the  to go through as well in which a  could already be trying to either enter or leave Dekalb from either side. Dekalb interlock needs to be fixed before doing anything. I would also mention CPW, but I don't think it is that bad compared to Dekalb. I feel if Dekalb were to be deinterlined,  trains would be able to run more trains in and out. West End has been suffering from the lack of  trains, its also not rare to see it being forced to run express as well as that happens practically every day. What makes it worse is that I've seen  and  trains operate on West End so casually every day as well which just shows how bad the service frequency is because I never see any  trains until like 30 mins later at the very least. As much as I hate the idea of implementing Van's plan to deinterline Dekalb and sending down the  (in my opinion it should be the  since the  rarely ever operates any service on West End and the  was born on that line) which also means people on that line are shafted to run on 4th Av local, it wouldn't really be as bad because regardless of whatever express service comes by on 4th Av,  or , both would run express into Manhattan. At least here,  trains would get a boost in service as well as maybe having  trains operate full time to Bedford instead of only peak rush hour service if the  were to consider an extension for  trains to Co-Op. It wouldn't hurt the  to at least take a look at the idea as it is pretty cheap to switch around a few lines as well as I'm assuming to implement a new switch south of 36 St. 

I’ll agree that the  running all day in The Bronx would be a big help for Concourse riders. Maybe that can be looked at when the MTA’s money picture looks better (then again, they didn’t consider it when their finances were in good shape). 

It’s interesting that you prefer the  instead of the  in the Vanshnookenraggen plan. By that same token (no pun intended!), the  could also stay in Astoria and I suppose the  could be truncated at Whitehall St.

Edited January 21, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Deucey said:

The only way for it to work really would be a viaduct in the center of the street - similar to how Miami’s subway runs on US-1 to Coral Gables, Honolulu’s train, or AirTrain on the Van Wyck. But to do it right, parking on Fordham would have to be eliminated to create a median for the pylons in order to keep daylight on the sidewalks.

And to minimize eminent domain, it’d alienate part of Devoe Park to avoid curving towards Cedar Av.

I’d tunnel it west of Third Av/Webster, elevate it at Fordham University, have it elevated in the median by Bathgate, run level between Cambreleng and Southern, and elevated median until the transition to Pelham Pkwy - then I’d run it in a ditch like MNRR in the Bronx on Park Av.

Idk why you'd run it in a ditch. Pelham Parkway is so wide you could run a concrete el over the center roadway and no one living there would hear a peep. 

Saves the inevitable kvetching about the loss of trees.

[Vulturious]

11 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’ll agree that the  running all day in The Bronx would be a big help for Concourse riders. Maybe that can be looked at when the MTA’s money picture looks better (then again, they didn’t consider it when their finances were in good shape). 

It’s interesting that you prefer the  instead of the  in the Vanshnookenraggen plan. By that same token (no pun intended!), the  could also stay in Astoria and I suppose the  could be truncated at Whitehall St.

Yeah, but in Van's plan, the  is basically a short turned  because the  isn't running to Forest Hills no longer. I also forgot to mention that the  in this scenario could be express on Brighton, but can probably run local from Dekalb Av with the  to Astoria. This way, the  can have some backup as well as the local stations on Broadway since the  is technically all local except for West End since I think it can run express. Although, now that I think about it you probably intend on having the  still running to Forest Hills, but truncated to Whitehall. That actually isn't bad as now the  doesn't need to be running on such a long route. However, this just leaves the issue of the  as it basically is just an express  which would be the . It wouldn't be bad regardless since Brighton has express service that runs via Broadway which is what people prefer. 

And speaking of the , it feels like a nitpick (not for me since I don't have a problem in the slightest) but the  has always been based out of Concourse Yard and the same with the  out of Coney Island. Concourse would probably want to keep the  based out of there so I guess easy solution would just be to swap them both in Brooklyn with the  to Coney Island and the  to Bay Ridge. At least here, both lines would benefit off each other as  trains get to stay express full time on 4th Av and  trains local and vice versa in the Bronx.

[Deucey]

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Idk why you'd run it in a ditch. Pelham Parkway is so wide you could run a concrete el over the center roadway and no one living there would hear a peep. 

Saves the inevitable kvetching about the loss of trees.

Keep it from needing Broadway Junction-style high bridges at WPR and at Pelham Bay Park, and minimizes eminent domain at the end if it’s going to Co-Op city or Bay Plaza.

[mrsman]

10 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Yeah, but in Van's plan, the  is basically a short turned  because the  isn't running to Forest Hills no longer. I also forgot to mention that the  in this scenario could be express on Brighton, but can probably run local from Dekalb Av with the  to Astoria. This way, the  can have some backup as well as the local stations on Broadway since the  is technically all local except for West End since I think it can run express. Although, now that I think about it you probably intend on having the  still running to Forest Hills, but truncated to Whitehall. That actually isn't bad as now the  doesn't need to be running on such a long route. However, this just leaves the issue of the  as it basically is just an express  which would be the . It wouldn't be bad regardless since Brighton has express service that runs via Broadway which is what people prefer. 

And speaking of the , it feels like a nitpick (not for me since I don't have a problem in the slightest) but the  has always been based out of Concourse Yard and the same with the  out of Coney Island. Concourse would probably want to keep the  based out of there so I guess easy solution would just be to swap them both in Brooklyn with the  to Coney Island and the  to Bay Ridge. At least here, both lines would benefit off each other as  trains get to stay express full time on 4th Av and  trains local and vice versa in the Bronx.

I think the nomenclature of whether to call a or a is secondary to the issue of routing trains in such a way as to not tangle up the system.  It seems that under the vanschnookenraggen plan*,  and  are identical except that one is local and one is express along the Concourse and one goes to Bay Ridge and the other goes to Sea Beach in Brooklyn.  I think the reason why goes to Bay Ridge, is because  is the part time line and it is easier to make a Bay Ridge night shuttle than a Sea Beach night shuttle.  But there is no reason why you couldn't run the trains the other way around and have the  be the full time line and be the part time line.

Regardless, the important take away from van's plan is the overall system benefit of having three separate routings through DeKalb that do not interfere with each other:

BD 6th Ave express - Bridge N tracks - 4 Ave express - To Sea Beach or Bay Ridge

NQ Bwy express - Bridge S tracks - Brighton tracks - express to Brighton, local to CI

RW Bwy local - Montague tunnel - 4 Ave local - To West End line (with some trains likely short-turning either at Whitehall or Bay Parkway)

 

* He only made public what he will do in Brooklyn - there is still the possibility that he may change the routings along the CPW line and have A and B to Washington Heights with C and D to Grand Concourse.  What he plans to do with all of the above lines north of Herald Square is still up in the air until he releases those plans.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

15 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Yeah, but in Van's plan, the  is basically a short turned  because the  isn't running to Forest Hills no longer. I also forgot to mention that the  in this scenario could be express on Brighton, but can probably run local from Dekalb Av with the  to Astoria. This way, the  can have some backup as well as the local stations on Broadway since the  is technically all local except for West End since I think it can run express. Although, now that I think about it you probably intend on having the  still running to Forest Hills, but truncated to Whitehall. That actually isn't bad as now the  doesn't need to be running on such a long route. However, this just leaves the issue of the  as it basically is just an express  which would be the . It wouldn't be bad regardless since Brighton has express service that runs via Broadway which is what people prefer. 

And speaking of the , it feels like a nitpick (not for me since I don't have a problem in the slightest) but the  has always been based out of Concourse Yard and the same with the  out of Coney Island. Concourse would probably want to keep the  based out of there so I guess easy solution would just be to swap them both in Brooklyn with the  to Coney Island and the  to Bay Ridge. At least here, both lines would benefit off each other as  trains get to stay express full time on 4th Av and  trains local and vice versa in the Bronx.

Right. So then the  can run 71st Ave to Whitehall and the  from Ditmars to CI via West End and 4th Ave Local. I mean, you could still run the  to/from Ditmars in addition to the , but then you still get the delays from having the  switch from express to local at 34th. Running the  fully local in Manhattan alongside the  and  is overkill. That's why I'd like to see it run fully express. Plus, once SAS Phase 2 opens, the  alone will be insufficient. 

I think the  to/from CI via Sea Beach (with an overnight shuttle) and the  running to/from Bay Ridge 24/7 is better too. Keeps the yard assignments and hours of operation simpler that way.

4 hours ago, mrsman said:

I think the nomenclature of whether to call a or a is secondary to the issue of routing trains in such a way as to not tangle up the system.  It seems that under the vanschnookenraggen plan*,  and  are identical except that one is local and one is express along the Concourse and one goes to Bay Ridge and the other goes to Sea Beach in Brooklyn.  I think the reason why goes to Bay Ridge, is because  is the part time line and it is easier to make a Bay Ridge night shuttle than a Sea Beach night shuttle.  But there is no reason why you couldn't run the trains the other way around and have the  be the full time line and be the part time line.

Regardless, the important take away from van's plan is the overall system benefit of having three separate routings through DeKalb that do not interfere with each other:

BD 6th Ave express - Bridge N tracks - 4 Ave express - To Sea Beach or Bay Ridge

NQ Bwy express - Bridge S tracks - Brighton tracks - express to Brighton, local to CI

RW Bwy local - Montague tunnel - 4 Ave local - To West End line (with some trains likely short-turning either at Whitehall or Bay Parkway)

 

* He only made public what he will do in Brooklyn - there is still the possibility that he may change the routings along the CPW line and have A and B to Washington Heights with C and D to Grand Concourse.  What he plans to do with all of the above lines north of Herald Square is still up in the air until he releases those plans.

I feel like it would be easier to make the Sea Beach Line an overnight shuttle than Bay Ridge, because a Sea Beach shuttle would have CI Yard at one end, whereas a Bay Ridge shuttle would not, regardless of what train serves Bay Ridge. That's also why I like the idea of running the  to/from CI via Sea Beach and the  to/from 95th-Bay Ridge 24/7. I recall reading the overnight  shuttle, which debuted in 1990, contributed to the line's overall unreliability, probably due to the lack of a storage yard at or near the Brooklyn end of the line. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Vulturious]

11 hours ago, mrsman said:

I think the nomenclature of whether to call a or a is secondary to the issue of routing trains in such a way as to not tangle up the system.  It seems that under the vanschnookenraggen plan*,  and  are identical except that one is local and one is express along the Concourse and one goes to Bay Ridge and the other goes to Sea Beach in Brooklyn.  I think the reason why goes to Bay Ridge, is because  is the part time line and it is easier to make a Bay Ridge night shuttle than a Sea Beach night shuttle.  But there is no reason why you couldn't run the trains the other way around and have the  be the full time line and be the part time line.

Regardless, the important take away from van's plan is the overall system benefit of having three separate routings through DeKalb that do not interfere with each other:

BD 6th Ave express - Bridge N tracks - 4 Ave express - To Sea Beach or Bay Ridge

NQ Bwy express - Bridge S tracks - Brighton tracks - express to Brighton, local to CI

RW Bwy local - Montague tunnel - 4 Ave local - To West End line (with some trains likely short-turning either at Whitehall or Bay Parkway)

 

* He only made public what he will do in Brooklyn - there is still the possibility that he may change the routings along the CPW line and have A and B to Washington Heights with C and D to Grand Concourse.  What he plans to do with all of the above lines north of Herald Square is still up in the air until he releases those plans.

Ah okay, I can see where you are coming from this. Although, he has actually mentioned that issue that is CPW where he talked about having the  and  swap, but never mentions the issue about 8th Av. If you really wanted to have the  and  to Washington Heights, I think the best way to do that is to keep the  to Coney Island via Sea Beach. The  right now has full length trains, but that is being barrowed from the  which are the R46's. Even when the R211's come by to make the  full length, we don't know what will happen to the R179's that are currently operating on it. I also forgot to mention that  trains would have to be based out of 207 St Yard if it were to run to Bay Ridge rather than Coney Island.

There isn't really a simple solution to fixing the issue that is CPW. Doesn't matter if both 6th Av trains go express or local with both 8th Av trains express or local because of 8th Av line. 50th St station is also an issue as it is a local station and if both the  and  were to run express, the upper level of that station would be abandoned and only used during late nights. There are people that have discussed about this issue either creating new switches south of 50th St which would help the merging issue between the  and  having both run local north of 42 St-PABT which would also alleviate the  as well. I also would add on that this could still add on having both the  and  to Washington Heights and the  and  to the Bronx. The idea isn't exactly perfect, but I haven't seen a lot of other alternatives that can help fix CPW.

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Right. So then the  can run 71st Ave to Whitehall and the  from Ditmars to CI via West End and 4th Ave Local. I mean, you could still run the  to/from Ditmars in addition to the , but then you still get the delays from having the  switch from express to local at 34th. Running the  fully local in Manhattan alongside the  and  is overkill. That's why I'd like to see it run fully express. Plus, once SAS Phase 2 opens, the  alone will be insufficient. 

I think the  to/from CI via Sea Beach (with an overnight shuttle) and the  running to/from Bay Ridge 24/7 is better too. Keeps the yard assignments and hours of operation simpler that way.

I feel like it would be easier to make the Sea Beach Line an overnight shuttle than Bay Ridge, because a Sea Beach shuttle would have CI Yard at one end, whereas a Bay Ridge shuttle would not, regardless of what train serves Bay Ridge. That's also why I like the idea of running the  to/from CI via Sea Beach and the  to/from 95th-Bay Ridge 24/7. I recall reading the overnight  shuttle, which debuted in 1990, contributed to the line's overall unreliability, probably due to the lack of a storage yard at or near the Brooklyn end of the line. 

True, but there isn't a reason to keeping the  name at this point, might as well just call it the . I wasn't expecting on having Sea Beach as a shuttle during late nights, but at least it still would benefit from a direct yard access. Where exactly would it terminate though? Keeping it at 59 St wouldn't be bad, but that would leave Sea Beach with no direct Manhattan service. I guess keeping it at Whitehall wouldn't be a bad thing as it still provides service to Manhattan still.

[JeremiahC99]

6 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

50th St station is also an issue as it is a local station and if both the  and  were to run express, the upper level of that station would be abandoned and only used during late nights. There are people that have discussed about this issue either creating new switches south of 50th St which would help the merging issue between the  and  having both run local north of 42 St-PABT which would also alleviate the  as well. I also would add on that this could still add on having both the  and  to Washington Heights and the  and  to the Bronx. The idea isn't exactly perfect, but I haven't seen a lot of other alternatives that can help fix CPW.

With deinterlining of 8th Avenue, by all  and  trains on the express between 145th and Canal, wouldn’t  train service be added in conjunction with a Queens Blvd deinterlining to compensate.  Train service would operate at 20-24 trains per hour (or potentially 30), providing almost the same service to 50th Street without adding new switches (though all on the lower level).

Edited January 22, 2021 by JeremiahC99

[Vulturious]

24 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

With deinterlining of 8th Avenue, by all  and  trains on the express between 145th and Canal, wouldn’t  train service be added in conjunction with a Queens Blvd deinterlining to compensate.  Train service would operate at 20-24 trains per hour (or potentially 30), providing almost the same service to 50th Street without adding new switches (though all on the lower level).

That's still the problem regardless if  trains were to have increased frequency of trains per hour. You would still leave an upper level abandoned only for it to be used during late nights. You also have to deal with people that want service towards uptown at that station as well so it's not exactly a win-win.

[nerdynel]

12 hours ago, Vulturious said:

That's still the problem regardless if  trains were to have increased frequency of trains per hour. You would still leave an upper level abandoned only for it to be used during late nights. You also have to deal with people that want service towards uptown at that station as well so it's not exactly a win-win.

CPW is indeed a tough nut to crack with regard to de-interlining. In NYTIP, I have all 8th Avenue service express and all 6th Avenue service local with direct express service from both Washington Heights and Concourse preserved, but as you said, there's the 50th Street upper level issue. I am considering alternate plans that leave CPW as is, while still realizing overall improvement.

[Caelestor]

I'm of the opinion that the only way to achieve interlining on the IND is to run all 8 Ave / CPW trains local between 207 Ave and WTC. The stops at Spring St, 23 St, and 50 St, all of which are fairly busy stations, wouldn't add too much running time to the express trains. Those who want to skip the local CPW stations can cross-platform transfer at 59 St and 125 St.

That said, this necessitates  service to run CPW express (not too difficult) and trains to go into Brooklyn and ultimately Far Rockaway. The  wouldn't have issues along the 53 St - QBL local tracks or Fulton because the whole line would be one trunk, but there's definitely some concern running trains all the way to Far Rockaway.

Alternatively, reconstruct 50 St, deactivate the upper level local tracks and extend the platforms to the express tracks. Then the  can stay on the express tracks all the way into Brooklyn.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

19 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Ah okay, I can see where you are coming from this. Although, he has actually mentioned that issue that is CPW where he talked about having the  and  swap, but never mentions the issue about 8th Av. If you really wanted to have the  and  to Washington Heights, I think the best way to do that is to keep the  to Coney Island via Sea Beach. The  right now has full length trains, but that is being barrowed from the  which are the R46's. Even when the R211's come by to make the  full length, we don't know what will happen to the R179's that are currently operating on it. I also forgot to mention that  trains would have to be based out of 207 St Yard if it were to run to Bay Ridge rather than Coney Island.

There isn't really a simple solution to fixing the issue that is CPW. Doesn't matter if both 6th Av trains go express or local with both 8th Av trains express or local because of 8th Av line. 50th St station is also an issue as it is a local station and if both the  and  were to run express, the upper level of that station would be abandoned and only used during late nights. There are people that have discussed about this issue either creating new switches south of 50th St which would help the merging issue between the  and  having both run local north of 42 St-PABT which would also alleviate the  as well. I also would add on that this could still add on having both the  and  to Washington Heights and the  and  to the Bronx. The idea isn't exactly perfect, but I haven't seen a lot of other alternatives that can help fix CPW.

True, but there isn't a reason to keeping the  name at this point, might as well just call it the . I wasn't expecting on having Sea Beach as a shuttle during late nights, but at least it still would benefit from a direct yard access. Where exactly would it terminate though? Keeping it at 59 St wouldn't be bad, but that would leave Sea Beach with no direct Manhattan service. I guess keeping it at Whitehall wouldn't be a bad thing as it still provides service to Manhattan still.

The  Sea Beach Shuttle can turn at 36th or Atlantic overnight. In fact, the old overnight  Sea Beach shuttle that ran from 1979-86 turned at 36th (as did the one that ran to/from 86th Street in 2002-04 during the CI rehab project). And the weekend  shuttle (also related to CI rehab) turned at Atlantic. 

Yes, CPW is a tough nut to crack, especially due to that merge at Columbus Circle.

18 hours ago, Vulturious said:

That's still the problem regardless if  trains were to have increased frequency of trains per hour. You would still leave an upper level abandoned only for it to be used during late nights. You also have to deal with people that want service towards uptown at that station as well so it's not exactly a win-win.

I suggested the possibility of the  as the local and the  as the express, with both serving Queens via 53rd St and both going to Brooklyn via Fulton. Then the upper level can stay in use full time. But I get the feeling there will be blowback over making the  fully local (as there was in 1990, when the MTA suggested it to deal with budget cuts - “something something, famous jazz song” 😆).

Edited January 22, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Bay Ridge Express]

4 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I suggested the possibility of the  as the local and the  as the express, with both serving Queens via 53rd St and both going to Brooklyn via Fulton. Then the upper level can stay in use full time. But I get the feeling there will be blowback over making the  fully local (as there was in 1990, when the MTA suggested it to deal with budget cuts - “something something, famous jazz song” 😆).

The  is already a very long route, and having the  be express in Brooklyn and  local and  local in Manhattan and  express would confuse riders.

I say, we don't need the upper level. There is the  train 700 feet with a transfer at the next stop in case one wants to go uptown via CPW. There is also the option of reconstructing the station to make it an express station and/or potentially have  trains run on the upper level instead of lower (as a last resort since this may perhaps be quite pricey).

Edited January 23, 2021 by Bay Ridge Express

[nerdynel]

23 hours ago, Caelestor said:

I'm of the opinion that the only way to achieve interlining on the IND is to run all 8 Ave / CPW trains local between 207 Ave and WTC. The stops at Spring St, 23 St, and 50 St, all of which are fairly busy stations, wouldn't add too much running time to the express trains. Those who want to skip the local CPW stations can cross-platform transfer at 59 St and 125 St.

That said, this necessitates  service to run CPW express (not too difficult) and trains to go into Brooklyn and ultimately Far Rockaway. The  wouldn't have issues along the 53 St - QBL local tracks or Fulton because the whole line would be one trunk, but there's definitely some concern running trains all the way to Far Rockaway.

Alternatively, reconstruct 50 St, deactivate the upper level local tracks and extend the platforms to the express tracks. Then the  can stay on the express tracks all the way into Brooklyn.

 

15 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

The  is already a very long route, and having the  be express in Brooklyn and  local and  local in Manhattan and  express would confuse riders.

I say, we don't need the upper level. There is the  train 700 feet with a transfer at the next stop in case one wants to go uptown via CPW. There is also the option of reconstructing the station to make it an express station and/or potentially have  trains run on the upper level instead of lower (as a last resort since this may perhaps be quite pricey).

I considered modifications to 50th Street station in my CPW post, but felt they're too disruptive to be worth it. If we de-interline, leave 50th as is, with the upper level closed except during the overnight hours.

To add to Bay Ridge's point, the southernmost exit at 59th is at 57th, and the northernmost exit at 42nd is at 44th. Plus, the transfer at 7th Avenue – 53rd Street is cross-plat regardless of direction for riders traveling between the 8th Avenue local and CPW local stops.

That said, as I mentioned upthread, I am considering alternate plans with no CPW de-interlining. I'm leaning toward keeping the de-interlining, but I haven't finalized anything yet.

[LGA Link N Train]

Bringing the topic of Coney Island Capacity over here from the 2nd Avenue Subway thread, I know that signal upgrades (spefically for the and would bring terminal capacity up a little bit), but how feasible (or practical) would it be to do the following? 

* Expand Coney Island Station by having the EL Structure (the  and ) curve immediately after 12th Street. The curve will be widened (going over the W 12 Car Spa)  and the easternmost platforms and tracks would be adjusted to have them curve in the eastward direction, doing so would allow for the relocation of X-over interlockings so that they’re located right before trains enter the station. During this time, the  train would use the  platforms to terminate which Segway’s into my next point. 

* On the North end of Coney Island, the interlockings would be adjusted to allow for more and Trains to terminate. In addition to that, the possibility of adding 2-4 extra tracks leading straight to Coney Island Yard should be looked at so that and  or Trains headed to the yard doesn’t interfere with  and service. 

[Deucey]

Thought I had thanks to @MHV9218’s random thought of  to 96th.

Basically:

•  gets bumped to Brighton Local M-F, and more frequent service 
•  becomes Brighton Express M-F, but slight service reduction to accommodate  to 96th

•  gets service bump to cover both reduced service and loss of  in Astoria.

•  becomes a shortline  between Continental and Whitehall, and trips switch lines at Continental like  does with  in Astoria - which could make service on  more reliable by virtue of the fact the new / combo means the fleet runs half the route every other trip and can make up service gaps sooner - and eliminates delays by taking away the 6th Av issue of  being held waiting for slots between .

 

Thoughts?

Edited February 1, 2021 by Deucey

[Mtatransit]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

Thought I had thanks to @MHV9218’s random thought of  to 96th.

Basically:

•  gets bumped to Brighton Local M-F, and more frequent service 
•  becomes Brighton Express M-F, but slight service reduction to accommodate  to 96th

•  gets service bump to cover both reduced service and loss of  in Astoria.

•  becomes a shortline  between Continental and Whitehall, and trips switch lines at Continental like  does with  in Astoria - which could make service on  more reliable by virtue of the fact the new / combo means the fleet runs half the route every other trip and can make up service gaps sooner - and eliminates delays by taking away the 6th Av issue of  being held waiting for slots between .

 

Thoughts?

The  will still have to wait for slots, but instead of at 5th Ave, it will be at Lexington Av-63rd Street.

Assuming weekend service patterns stays the same as today, 

This service pattern will cost more money to the . Some thoughts

 currently is using the  to save money so they do not have to run all the service into Brooklyn. Under your scenario the combined number of  and  trains will all run to Brooklyn, which reduces capacity for the  on 4th Avenue Express and the  on Broadway. You could alleviate the Brooklyn issue by running some  local, but in Manhattan there may be a severe decline in the number of  's that could be ran on the express track assuming both  and  runs on the local, and extra  runs on the express. So there may be a bottleneck there. Unless there is a cut to the number of trains to Astoria

 would also be extended to Coney Island I presume, and  to terminate at Brightn Beach. 

Other than the Broadway issue I don't think there is any other issues. 

I personally think the  works pretty good today

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Mtatransit

[Deucey]

17 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

Under your scenario the combined number of  and  trains will all run to Brooklyn, which reduces capacity for the  on 4th Avenue Express and the  on Broadway.

Since, in this scenario,  would still end at Whitehall, then back to Continental and change to  headed to Bay Ridge, and  at Continental becomes  to Whitehall, the premise of your contention is faulty. 
 

And with QBL and BMT Broadway Local being isolated lines, the only choke points are the same as they are now - 60th St to 34th St BMT due to  merges.

Also, you lose many QBL Express delays since  isn’t merging in to 53rd St and out at Queens Plaza - even if you route onto 53rd and keep  on 63rd.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Deucey

[Mtatransit]

16 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Since, in this scenario,  would still end at Whitehall, then back to Continental and change to  headed to Bay Ridge, and  at Continental becomes  to Whitehall, the premise of your contention is faulty. 
 

And with QBL and BMT Broadway Local being isolated lines, the only choke points are the same as they are now - 60th St to 34th St BMT due to  merges.

But in your scenario, the Astoria Line will maintain full service which is the same number of TPH today with both  and  . Therefore with the increased amount of  on Broadway Express tracks there isn't really much room for the  . The only way is to cut the amount of service to Astoria, to make room for the  , which I don't believe is feasible

Unless of course we cut the  from 96th Street completely and reroute it to Astoria, but there isn't capacity under 60th St

You are right about merging delays on QBL, but Lex Ave-53rd St will suffer a service cut with the reroute of the  . That is especially true w/the frequency of the  .

The best way I believe to service the Williamsburg- UES market is to reroute the  via 63rd St. This way there will be a cross platform transfer to the  but 53rd St tube will be to capacity again. There will be merging delays with the  at 36th St but its better than blocking the  at Queens Plaza.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Mtatransit

[Deucey]

6 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

But in your scenario, the Astoria Line will maintain full service which is the same number of TPH today with both  and  .

Except:

8 hours ago, Deucey said:

•  gets service bump to cover both reduced service and loss of  in Astoria.

Where did I say it’d be the same TPH? That’s your inference.

[Mtatransit]

5 hours ago, Deucey said:

Where did I say it’d be the same TPH? That’s your inference.

Then Astoria riders gets a service reduction? I think that line needs every train it gets right now. During the rush hours especially at Queensboro Plaza, half of the riders on the  and  gets off and pack onto the  and  . That is in addition to the ridership picked up prior to Queensboro Plaza where the trains are already SRO.

I think we gave the SAS enough service as is with some  and some  heading up there already. They have an alternative (Lex Av Line). Astoria riders do not. So I wouldn't sacrifice Queens riders for more service on SAS

[Bay Ridge Express]

In many areas of the city, especially Downtown Brooklyn/Lower Manhattan, some subway lines are extremely close together as a result of their origins. So, an idea that I had was, in a consolidated system (aka the )--what if, some sections of some lines that are too close to another line were terminated in order to focus on building projects in outer areas, or streets that are not so close to each other? E.g. in Lower Manhattan btwn Broad and Kenmare the (), (), and  are all pretty close to each other. So, for example, what if the  rerouted from Lower Manhattan and went northbound on 2 Av instead, or southbound via Chrystie and Park Row like the proposed  would? (They could also be part of the 's route, idk). Ofc, I understand that sometimes bc of population density it is good for multiple routes to be part of the same area (e.g.  and ,  and proposed Northern Blvd line) though I think that there is an excess in some areas of Lower Manhattan in particular, esp since subway service there is typically just a block away from another.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

In many areas of the city, especially Downtown Brooklyn/Lower Manhattan, some subway lines are extremely close together as a result of their origins. So, an idea that I had was, in a consolidated system (aka the )--what if, some sections of some lines that are too close to another line were terminated in order to focus on building projects in outer areas, or streets that are not so close to each other? E.g. in Lower Manhattan btwn Broad and Kenmare the (), (), and  are all pretty close to each other. So, for example, what if the  rerouted from Lower Manhattan and went northbound on 2 Av instead, or southbound via Chrystie and Park Row like the proposed  would? (They could also be part of the 's route, idk). Ofc, I understand that sometimes bc of population density it is good for multiple routes to be part of the same area (e.g.  and ,  and proposed Northern Blvd line) though I think that there is an excess in some areas of Lower Manhattan in particular, esp since subway service there is typically just a block away from another.

Nassau is really built the way it is because it was Dual Contracts and the BMT needed a place to turn around their Willy B and Montague trains, so why not solve that problem by tying the two together?

Keep in mind that Lower Manhattan used to be a lot busier. Peak Manhattan population was in 1910 at 2.3M people, and nearly all of those people lived below 14th St more or less. Today the business district has moved to Midtown to be walking distance of the railroad terminals, but for most of the period when the subway was being built that shift hadn't happened yet. And a good chunk of Lower Manhattan was high-density slums replaced intentionally with lower-density NYCHA, or in the case of the notorious Five Points replaced with the Federal buildings around Worth St.

[Bay Ridge Express]

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Keep in mind that Lower Manhattan used to be a lot busier. Peak Manhattan population was in 1910 at 2.3M people, and nearly all of those people lived below 14th St more or less. Today the business district has moved to Midtown to be walking distance of the railroad terminals, but for most of the period when the subway was being built that shift hadn't happened yet. And a good chunk of Lower Manhattan was high-density slums replaced intentionally with lower-density NYCHA, or in the case of the notorious Five Points replaced with the Federal buildings around Worth St.

Right, that was the point of said proposal, that not everything in Lower Manhattan needs to run within a block of each other anymore.